Do you want to be a single parent or not? How will this affect your life in say ten years? Fifteen ? You will still be supporting this kid in twenty years time, too. I would think of that. Are you one hundred percent you will never become resentful or bitter with this child because you need to sacrifice your lifestyle to take care of them? Your time? Your money? An unplanned pregnancy already is deserving of that question, and with a single parenthood unplanned pregnancy you better be absolutely sure of what you’re getting into. It’s not the money, it’s the dedication.

Are you considering getting into another transactional relationship after this one? A child might make things more complicated too. A lot of men want a lady to keep them company, but not all are happy with a child tagging along.

I’m finding it hard to believe someone would be so ambivalent about completely changing their life like that. You say you would want the best for the child. Can someone have a great life without one of their parents? Sure, but whoever is left taking care of them must be absolutely devoted. You can’t backtrack.

Isn’t this Robbie Williams? I’ve never been in UK.

I like this opinion, take my downvote

You said “with your current knowledge still intact”. If that means I can know beforehand which things I’ve already invested in which didn’t pay off and those which did (and I mean relationships, careers, life choices, not necessarily money) that alone would be a massive perk. You want to give me physical perks on top of that, I’m not complaining. But the deal was already a no brainer.

If there isn’t knowledge remembered then I’m a bit ambivalent about which of the two. I think I might go for magic but if you strip all memory away I would have nothing to compare it to.

Oh hey I didn’t even think of this! I’ll search

Okay I’ll wait a bit and if no better suggestions pop up I’ll try my luck there. A yoghurt pot indoors is going to look out place amongst all these photos of pretty mushrooms outdoors

Well… It’s a cool thing that we found but the photos aren’t amazing as photos. I wouldn’t flex my photography skills in a photography community with these

Would that be a good fit? I thought it was for mushrooms

I consider rage bait anything that purposefully riles people up without any productive outcomes. Say, you can have a heated argument with someone because you have an interest in the topic and/or seeing other people’s points of view (even if you strongly disagree), but if your purpose is just for the sake of getting reactions, well, that’s ragebaiting.

It overlaps with trolling, but trolling is more broad- you can troll to make people confused, shocked, to mock someone in particular, etc. Trolling includes also getting people into gotcha moments, engaging in a heated argument just to be annoying to one person in particular, trolls like to see people make fools out of themselves. Ragebaiting doesn’t necessarily have that, it’s more about getting the crowd to express their annoyance at something, not necessarily your actions.

Watermarking never meant to be a legitimate way of telling this stuff apart. Anyone slightly savvy could run a generator locally and produce images without watermarking, if they really meant to fool others. You are right in that the watermarking makes it (or did) more difficult for the average joe, but yeah. This is a never was kind of scenario

Not sure if this applies to you but maybe you have heard a phrase about you that doesn’t make sense fully. In my case, it was “you’re intimidating” and that took me a long long time to understand because as a woman who has a lot of insecurities and can’t physically fight this is absolutely ridiculous. Then one day I was watching some relationship guru video clip and the guy said “if you’re told you’re intimidating and can’t make sense of it, it means you are hard to impress”. That clicked. At least, within dating contexts. I don’t know. I think most of the honest feedback I’ve gotten from potential dates, from boyfriends, from family members (though that required always a difficult argument beforehand and getting feedback was never the goal) and also from teachers who get fed up with your bullshit occasionally. It’s never going to come to you from a comfortable source, but you shouldn’t be asking your enemies either, because they’ll lie too.

It doesn’t sound fair to me. Why don’t they sell the info of the management and higher ups only ,if that’s the case? But no. As always, those who are most vulnerable always get hit the hardest and first.

This is now part of my headcanon. Romeo dies and a random cat that was nearby plays with his hair.

You aren’t subject to every pressure every hominid ancestor ever was. Bald today still gets you laid, congrats! And you got hats to keep warm and look fabulous. :) I believe long hair must have presented some kind of advantage at some point though, there are some interesting comments here.

Yes, I understand this and it is in my post as part of the question: is it just a showoff feature like peacock’s feathers? I also understand traits that don’t impact fitness won’t be selected against.

But I have the nagging feeling that the body does spend a fair amount of extra resources creating long hair when it could make do with just a fraction. Use it or lose it is a popular trend in the animal kingdom. You can have a very showy coat using a lot less resources, if we’re talking about health markers only.

But, fear not, there are theories that support long hair as having an actual practical function that impacts fitness, and people in the comments have posted some.

What I like about these theories is that they aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have a variety of factors that mildly favor the same trait, it’s not always one single factor exerting clear pressure on things.

Aha, this answer is satisfactory. You introduce the concept of greasy long hair. At first I thought, well why not just greasy fur then? Why only on the head? But then I remember humans and probably early hominids like to wrap themselves with things like other creatures pelts and the head is probably the only place you can actually grow hair from. And if greasy it’s like a sort of raincoat thing.

I can sleep now thanks

Heh that’s an interesting consideration. I also wondered about this. It’s not mutually exclusive with other theories, so…

That’s an interesting take, agreed. But it doesn’t explain why the length… You can still shave hair that doesn’t grow too long. And look dangerous to fuck with

Yes, that’s very interesting, and I also read about similar studies which explain pubic hair texture as having moisture isolating capabilities. However this doesn’t address my question, which is about the apparently excessive length of head hair regardless of texture.

Alright, that’s true with the history since long hairs stay for years, good point. I’m not sure I follow with shearing and technological capacity, mind explaining that a little bit more please?